Mhz Vs. Cas - Guess Whats Faster...

Printable View

10-22-2006, 07:57 PM
Kunaak

3 Attachment(s)

Mhz Vs. Cas - Guess Whats Faster...

Super Pi 8M.
all settings done from bios.

I just chose one speed that I could use multiple fast mhz, and cas settings from. 7 x 367 worked out pretty good for me.

Hardware...

Asus P5B Deluxe. Bios 0711.
Mushkin PC 6400 2 gig kit, cas 4-4-3-10 set.
E6300 CPU.

from the looks of this, MHz is more important then cas alone, and 1:1 isn't better then other higher ratios...unless you can run 1:1 at over 1 ghz of course.

733 mhz at 1:1, cas 3-3-2-8 = 4M-10 Sec.

920 mhz at 4:5, cas 4-3-3-8 = 4M-3 Sec.

1100 mhz at 2:3, cas 5-4-4-8 = 3M-52 Sec.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161575570

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161575570

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161575570

this is just a simple test, and not meant to be conclusive.
10-22-2006, 08:09 PM
sierra_bound

No real surprise. :) As I mentioned to someone else in another thread, if you have RAM capable of high clocks, take advantage of it.
10-22-2006, 08:10 PM
NickS

Nice results, but welcome to last week.

I've been trying to explain to a lot of intel users that MHz > Timings. I guess this finally proves it clearly. :)
10-22-2006, 08:11 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickS

Nice results, but welcome to last week.

I've been trying to explain to a lot of intel users that MHz > Timings. I guess this finally proves it clearly. :)

You mean welcome to two months ago.;) The people who weren't obsessed with FSB speed saw this early on.

Almost all my best Pi times were done running 4:5 or 2:3 with looser timings. You won't really see the benefit when you run 1M. But on the longer iterations, the value of higher memory speed really becomes clear.
10-22-2006, 08:23 PM
xlink

you realize that the timings are measured in cycles and that if you increase the cycles the latency is staying effectively the same right?:stick:
10-22-2006, 08:27 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlink

you realize that the timings are measured in cycles and that if you increase the cycles the latency is staying effectively the same right?:stick:

Timings do make a difference. It's just that RAM speed tends to be more important. Try running SuperPi 32M at 3-3-3 and again at 4-4-4 with same FSB and memory speeds. 3-3-3 will be faster, I guarantee you.

There were a couple of articles early on saying timings don't matter, period. Well, if you bench, timings do matter, especially if you're running 1:1. Writers tend to over-generalize.
10-22-2006, 08:29 PM
Revv23

timings always matter, just mhz matter more muhahaha.
10-22-2006, 08:49 PM
guess2098

nice test :)
but i done it like few months b4 hhehehhee
always good to remind all member!
higher mhz is better
10-22-2006, 08:57 PM
fhpchris

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

Timings do make a difference. It's just that RAM speed tends to be more important. Try running SuperPi 32M at 3-3-3 and again at 4-4-4 with same FSB and memory speeds. 3-3-3 will be faster, I guarantee you.

There were a couple of articles early on saying timings don't matter, period. Well, if you bench, timings do matter, especially if you're running 1:1. Writers tend to over-generalize.

OPB said himself that 1:1 @ 3-3-3 was faster than 1200mhz 4-4-3, so I am sure this issue isnt as cut and dry as just mhz or just timings :)
10-22-2006, 09:21 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

OPB said himself that 1:1 @ 3-3-3 was faster than 1200mhz 4-4-3, so I am sure this issue isnt as cut and dry as just mhz or just timings :)

Faster in what? iM? 8M? 32M? 3DMark?

I don't think anyone here said it's one or the other.

Let me quote myself.:D

"Timings do make a difference. It's just that RAM speed tends to be more important."

OPB uses mostly 975X boards. I can tell you they won't do 1200MHz 4-4-3, so that's kind of a moot point.
10-22-2006, 09:30 PM
fhpchris

http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=49

Quote:

Congratulations less frenzy, the first eight seconds when the male vein lower than roro 19mhz, pi has a fast 0.2 seconds.fsb os and it is very important not know Vcore number, and C is his u is the same?Unfortunately, some feel that C is his shoulders.If the measurements above the 5.8 GHz band should be 1.73v 5526 pi 8.5 seconds on the strength of this proportion could not be considered;Before I go 5566mhz also try using 14x400 5600mhz.na run 1,200 2:3.4-4-3 ... the pi 1m 1m 9.125s 5566mhz worse there than in 1 :1 position, the higher the frequency, the greater the burden mch and ram, the relatively higher Vcore increases,cpu load greater, although the frequency of super elevated,But, it will reduce the efficiency of C. .. This is the great debate yesterday and today ..

1200 2:3 4-4-3 worse! than 1:1... at least that is how I think the translation is, my traditional chinese is rather bad...
10-22-2006, 09:34 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=49

1200 2:3 4-4-3 worse! than 1:1... at least that is how I think the translation is, my traditional chinese is rather bad...

But look at Kunaak's results. Don't they disprove that theory.:) Kunaak ran 3-3-3, 4-3-3 and 5-4-4 at same CPU speed. Only memory speed changed.
10-22-2006, 09:45 PM
fhpchris

I think we are agreeing here ;)

I know 368ish 3-3-2 isnt that fast from experience, but that does not mean cas 3 cannot be fast at all, Im sure there is one point where running cas 3 is really fast, it would be great If I could get some good runs @ 1200 mhz in to compare.

I will see in ~a week or so ;)
10-22-2006, 09:59 PM
exhausted mule

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlink

you realize that the timings are measured in cycles and that if you increase the cycles the latency is staying effectively the same right?:stick:

i aggree with link here.

if your running at 100mhz with a 3cycle delay, you'll be able to do something else for the other 97cycles present in the test.

if your running at 200mhz with a 4cycle delay that'll give you 196 cycles to mess with.

its pretty simple if you think about it and can easily be represented with math. but of course there will be a tradeoff once the overall speed difference is smaller and you'd have to factor in the other timings as well and their relations but after a given overall speed the fsb speed will offer more bandwith.

i'm sure chipset latency has a play in this as well but you get the picture.
10-22-2006, 10:03 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

I think we are agreeing here ;)

I know 368ish 3-3-2 isnt that fast from experience, but that does not mean cas 3 cannot be fast at all, Im sure there is one point where running cas 3 is really fast, it would be great If I could get some good runs @ 1200 mhz in to compare.

I will see in ~a week or so ;)

OMEGA3 and OPB run 1:1. They are the two best at 32M at the moment. But they also use X6800's and have lots of multipliers at their disposal. So they need good RAM speed, but not necessarily the fastest RAM speed. But I think for Joe Schmo, Kunaak's results are more relevant.

The people who say timings don't matter are smoking crack. The people who say RAM speed doesn't matter are also on drugs. Theories are neither here nor there. It's what the results show that counts.
10-22-2006, 10:10 PM
bachus_anonym

Yep, pretty obvious but thanks for posting it, Eric :) CAS latency by itself does not make a whole lot of a difference (some - yes, but not a huge), even in majority of benchmarks we run around here, but especially 1M.

Same goes for your coolaler's post, fhpchris. SPi1M is really bad benchmark to run if you want to show or see differences timmings make. I can believe, that 460x12, 1:1, 5-3-3-3.0 vs 400x14, 2:3, 5-4-4-4.0 will not show a lot of variation for 1M, but I'm having a hard time believing same situation wll be for 32M, as that is the calculation where bandwidth matters.

I don't have 975x mobo, but e.g. sierra could run a quick 32M bench sometime and show us e.g. 433x9, 1:1, 5-3-3-3.0 vs 390x10, 2:3, 5-4-4-4.0 :D I'm pretty sure, bandwidth will win... Maybe not a huge one, but few good seconds for sure...
10-22-2006, 10:41 PM
sierra_bound

I refuse to run 5-4-4.:D

I did do 393X10 2:3 @ 4-4-3 last night on my P5B Dlx. No tweaking.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7...93x1023fk3.jpg

Now, compare that with someone else who was using a 975X board and running 1:1 at 3-3-3 at a higher CPU speed.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=29
10-22-2006, 10:52 PM
xlink

again...

all the "minor" RAMs settings are probably staying the same and the latency increase is again almost negligeable.

going from 733mhz to 1000 is a 50% increase, the timings don't even increase by about 50% overall... technically its running at lower latency at 1100 in some scenarios(if you measure latency in nanoseconds as opposed to cycles)
10-22-2006, 11:07 PM
Tony

You guys are not taking advantage of sub timings, asus losen timings in different modes and ratio's so you have to set like for like to see a true comparison.

Once we have fully opened up bios files you will soon see the power of 1:1 with lower latency over upclocks with relaxed timings im sure. At this time we are being crippled by bios files...trust me ;)
10-22-2006, 11:15 PM
Revv23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

You guys are not taking advantage of sub timings, asus losen timings in different modes and ratio's so you have to set like for like to see a true comparison.

Once we have fully opened up bios files you will soon see the power of 1:1 with lower latency over upclocks with relaxed timings im sure. At this time we are being crippled by bios files...trust me ;)

Thats why 975x xtreme benchers stay at 1:1 ;)
10-22-2006, 11:25 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revv23

Thats why 975x xtreme benchers stay at 1:1 ;)

I have the fastest 32M time with single-stage cooling and I was running 4:5 on a 975X board.;)

http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/6...m459845kz7.jpg

Denny was also using 4:5 and he has the fastest time with dry ice.

http://www.iamxtreme.net/cpu/x68/1041922.JPG

Those using LN2 don't need to run 4:5 or 2:3. They just raise the multiplier. The people with the top three times in the world all had RAM speed in the 440-445 range.

I run 32M a lot. So does bachus and a few other people here. Trust me, when you run a certain bench many times, you know what's best.

Theories are just totally meaningless in the world of benching. Don't tell me, show me. BTW, I'm not talking about you personally. I just can't stand those who aren't willing to put their theories to the test.
10-23-2006, 01:18 AM
hipro5

NOTHING can beat 400MHz+ 1:1 at Cas 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 with FAST subtimmings.....Though you CAN'T find such rams today!....:D
Well.....It's also good the 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 with FAST subtimmings over 450MHz as well BUT 1:1.....;)
10-23-2006, 01:21 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

Theories are just totally meaningless in the world of benching. Don't tell me, show me. BTW, I'm not talking about you personally. I just can't stand those who aren't willing to put their theories to the test.

Get me a bench like this EVEN at 1300MHz DDR frequency....Not theory.....Fact.....;) :D

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/C..._1_4_3_2_1.png
10-23-2006, 01:23 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunaak

733 mhz at 1:1, cas 3-3-2-8 = 4M-10 Sec.

920 mhz at 4:5, cas 4-3-3-8 = 4M-3 Sec.

1100 mhz at 2:3, cas 5-4-4-8 = 3M-52 Sec.

How about testing at 733MHz at 1:1 with Cas 3-2-2-1-15us-8-20-5(or4)-8-8-6-3-4-3 .....You have Fatbodies....;)\

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

The people who say timings don't matter are smoking crack. The people who say RAM speed doesn't matter are also on drugs. Theories are neither here nor there. It's what the results show that counts.

100% agree but with 1:1 as well.....:D ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

I refuse to run 5-4-4.:D

I did do 393X10 2:3 @ 4-4-3 last night on my P5B Dlx. No tweaking.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7...93x1023fk3.jpg

Now, compare that with someone else who was using a 975X board and running 1:1 at 3-3-3 at a higher CPU speed.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=29

Mmmmm......welllll NOT exactly the "same"......You're running tweked and he has "normal windows".....If he tweaks too, you're down....;) :D

Whould you like me to run one at 3930MHz at 1:1 tweaked with rams at Cas 3-2-2-1...with the rams at ONLY 393MHz....?..Your rams are at 589MHz.......I'll be at 393MHz.....thas 196MHz ram difference.....!..... :D
10-23-2006, 01:34 AM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

Get me a bench like this EVEN at 1300MHz DDR frequency....Not theory.....Fact.....;) :D

Wow, you had to resort to Cas4.

Try doing 460MHz on your Cellshock memory with Cas3 (3-3-3) timings on an unmodded board.;)

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/3...60x7333cx0.jpg

I'm using new TeamGroup memory. By the way, I'm still benching. 32M at 461MHz 3-3-3 is almost done.:D
10-23-2006, 01:45 AM
sierra_bound

Update. 461Mhz is done. This is with 2.4v, not 3.0+ for memory voltage.

Can your Cellshocks do this at 2.4v?;)

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6...61x7333vm5.jpg
10-23-2006, 01:49 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

Update. 461Mhz is done. This is with 2.4v, not 3.0+ for memory voltage.

Can your Cellshocks do this at 2.4v?;)

Unfortunetly no they can't do this any more after the 3.5Vdimm they had.....They work though but they are semi-died.....:D

Why do I have a fealing that we say the same thing?......1:1 with the most lower timmings we can use?...... :D
10-23-2006, 01:56 AM
sierra_bound

By the way, I'm not trying to get in a pissing match with you. I have a great deal of respect for your skills. But I think a distinction needs to be made between modded and unmodded boards. Micutzu did 490MHz @ 3-3-3 with 2.7v and the same TeamGroup memory. I'm just showing what can be done with an unmodded board.

The Pi times suck because I booted into Windows on the 1333MHz strap. I'm just trying to find the ceiling for this RAM. Then I will worry about tweaking.;)
10-23-2006, 03:15 AM
hipro5

No one is pissing off......We discuss here....:D :toast:

Now......

Can 460MHz with Cas 3-3-3-x come close to the Fatbodies at Cas 3-2-2-1....?.....NOT fully tweaked though (maxmem-etc).....Just a quick run that I did right now....PLUS that I have 2 x 512MB rams and not 2 x 1GB ones....PLUS that it was done on my retail unmoded ABIT IC7.....errrr.....AW9D-MAX I mean.....VMCH= 1.87Volts real.....;) :D

P.S. about 57MHz less MHz on rams..... :)

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/C...14.46m_png.png
10-23-2006, 03:23 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunaak

Super Pi 8M.
all settings done from bios.

I just chose one speed that I could use multiple fast mhz, and cas settings from. 7 x 367 worked out pretty good for me.

Hardware...

Asus P5B Deluxe. Bios 0711.
Mushkin PC 6400 2 gig kit, cas 4-4-3-10 set.
E6300 CPU.

from the looks of this, MHz is more important then cas alone, and 1:1 isn't better then other higher ratios...unless you can run 1:1 at over 1 ghz of course.

733 mhz at 1:1, cas 3-3-2-8 = 4M-10 Sec.

920 mhz at 4:5, cas 4-3-3-8 = 4M-3 Sec.

1100 mhz at 2:3, cas 5-4-4-8 = 3M-52 Sec.

EDIT: Saving alittle on the bandwidth, for member without high speed internet.
No Need to repost my own pics...

-Kunaak-

this is just a simple test, and not meant to be conclusive.

965 vs 975 chipsets......Not accurate coz the tests HAVE to be done on the same mobo/rams......That's why I've asked you to run your Fatbodies at 1:1 tight timings at 367MHz so as to compare yourshelf with your first bench.....;)

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/C..._3.49m_png.png

I've said and I'm still saying that the companies are trying to "force" us believe that higher MHz Rams with looser timings are better, SINCE the TCCD time.....Back that time, they couldn't compete with the BH-6/5 chips and now they can't compete with the Fatbodies OR with the newer ram chips with cas 3-3-3-x......

BTW: at your third bench,the rams are at 550MHz and mine are ONLY at 367MHz thas 185MHz Ram frequency difference......975 vs 965 chipsets plus 1:1 ownage plus tight times ownage.....;)

EDIT: I have to add here that the "first" Cas, doesn't really matter a lot on Intel platforms....3 or 4 ....I'll test the 5 one so as to see what it does..... :)
10-23-2006, 03:37 AM
ozzimark

heh, from the looks of things, AM2 doesn't exist to you guys anymore :lol2:

i'll have to run a few benches myself, though i know 5-5-4 will end up being the fastest, since memory ratio means SH*T for K8 :toast:
10-23-2006, 03:43 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzimark

heh, from the looks of things, AM2 doesn't exist to you guys anymore :lol2:

i'll have to run a few benches myself, though i know 5-5-4 will end up being the fastest, since memory ratio means SH*T for K8 :toast:

:D :toast:
10-23-2006, 04:16 AM
Kunaak

ok hipro, I will take this up further, cause yes... I do have the ram for it, and I am still curious.
10-23-2006, 05:00 AM
kiwi

Should be same cpu as well, allendale slower

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzimark

heh, from the looks of things, AM2 doesn't exist to you guys anymore :lol2:

What's am2? :p:
10-23-2006, 06:28 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunaak

ok hipro, I will take this up further, cause yes... I do have the ram for it, and I am still curious.

Yes please do.......out of couriosity.....:)
10-23-2006, 06:31 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi

Should be same cpu as well, allendale slower

Yes that's why I told Kunnak above to test by himshelf, to find out what will happen...;)
10-23-2006, 07:02 AM
MACMAC

Interesting thread.

Funny, I was going to make a post asking if there was a general consensus on what was better? Old Fatbody D9DQW/D9DQT or the newer D9GMH/D9GKX.

I have lots of 1GB Fatbody sticks, and some D9GMH, but no DDR2 system :slap:

Just trying to figure out which I should keep for future usage.
10-23-2006, 07:49 AM
fhpchris

Hipro dont tempt ozzy with cas 3-2-2, you know AM2 can only run 3-3-3 ;)

Thanks for all the effort that everyone has put into getting a solid comparison!
10-23-2006, 12:50 PM
Kunaak

3 Attachment(s)

ok, many benchmarks coming up, so please be patient while I post them all.

3DMark2001se Lobby.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636469

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636469

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636469

Again, MHz Wins...
10-23-2006, 12:54 PM
Kunaak

3 Attachment(s)

Crystal Mark

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636720

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636720

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636720

Mhz Wins again...
10-23-2006, 01:00 PM
Kunaak

3 Attachment(s)

FEAR

Fear at 367, cas 3-3-2-8.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636948

Fear at 460 cas 4-3-3-8.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636948

Fear at 550 cas 5-4-4-8.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161636948

Quick Analysis.

going from 367 to 460, gets a higher Minimum frame rate, and a higher maximum frame rate but doesnt effect the average frame rate much.

going from 460 to 550, gets a higher average frame rate, and a higher maximum frame rate this time.

the difference between 367 and 550 is definatly enough to warrant using MHz more, then cas, when in a game.
10-23-2006, 01:15 PM
camouflage

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickS

Nice results, but welcome to last week.

:confused: Ever heard of being kind to other ppl.........?
10-23-2006, 01:24 PM
Kunaak

3 Attachment(s)

3dmark2003 Air Plane test... a personal favorite since this ones always been so sensitive to increases in ram or CPU Speed.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161638450

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161638450

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161638450

Again, MHz wins...
it looks pretty grim for cas, cause I am not finding a single case so far where Cas Alone will win a benchmark.

remember... this isn't Fatbody Vs. Regular D9...
thats a post for another person to make.
this is Mhz Vs Cas....
10-23-2006, 01:32 PM
fhpchris

Kunaak did you run your tests on p5B DLX?

If you didnt run memset and change the timings than that could be a possible solution, and I know memset and 965 has issues.
10-23-2006, 01:42 PM
bachus_anonym

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

Get me a bench like this EVEN at 1300MHz DDR frequency....Not theory.....Fact.....;) :D

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/C..._1_4_3_2_1.png

George,

Unfortunately, WinRAR is about one of the very, very few benchmarks where 2-3-3.0/4.0 shines that well and high frequency has a bit of a trouble catching up :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

No one is pissing off......We discuss here....:D :toast:
Now......

Can 460MHz with Cas 3-3-3-x come close to the Fatbodies at Cas 3-2-2-1....?.....NOT fully tweaked though (maxmem-etc).....Just a quick run that I did right now....PLUS that I have 2 x 512MB rams and not 2 x 1GB ones....PLUS that it was done on my retail unmoded ABIT IC7.....errrr.....AW9D-MAX I mean.....VMCH= 1.87Volts real.....;) :D

P.S. about 57MHz less MHz on rams..... :) On P5B Deluxe, 2GB vs 1GB is amounts to 9-10s, so your 2-2-3.0 still wins by some. Don't get me wrongs, but I think Fatbody's days are over :fact:

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/C...14.46m_png.png

I can tell you, that 358x9 DDR2-1074 5-4-4-4.0 on ASUS P5B Deluxe, pulls exactly the same time ;) No tweaks whatsoever, straight-up run on a default WinXP OS ;) Give or take 5-10 seconds for 1GB vs 2GB...
There is a point, where no matter how hard you will try to squeeze those 2's out of your RAM, high frequency will eventually win, especially with benchmarks where bandwidth is more important, like 32M... WinRAR is a whole different animal, though :)

EDIT: OK, 1sec off :lol:

http://www.clockmehigh.com/cooler/sc...5_4444_32M.png

Your run is still faster as I have a 9-10s advantage due to 2GB vs your 1GB, but don't get me wrong, but I think Fatbody's ultra-low latency days are close to over. Besides, most of those kits are 2x512MB, with just a short run of 2x1GB 8000UL. Now, I'd take D9GMH/GKX over Fatbody anyday :).
10-23-2006, 01:51 PM
nn_step

well Intel is less effected by latency than it is effected by Bandwidth.
AMD on the other hand is more effected by Latency than Bandwidth.
But honestly when more and more people get into overclocking DDR2 we will see that there are a hell of alot of tweaks needed to use it to its max
10-23-2006, 01:52 PM
sierra_bound

The 975 vs. 965 debate is getting very old. I have both. For RAM testing, the P5B Dlx is one of the best boards because you can hit memory speeds that unmodded 975X boards simply won't reach.
10-23-2006, 02:06 PM
Kunaak

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

Kunaak did you run your tests on p5B DLX?

If you didnt run memset and change the timings than that could be a possible solution, and I know memset and 965 has issues.

like I said in the first post...

all settings done from bios.
the only issue I am aware of, with memset and the P5B is that you can set cas 3 at any time, and it will do nothing... and you can do it at any MHz.

however, I dont understand what you mean by "Solution"...

there is no problem here to solve...
10-23-2006, 02:07 PM
Exedy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

The 975 vs. 965 debate is getting very old. I have both. For RAM testing, the P5B Dlx is one of the best boards because you can hit memory speeds that unmodded 975X boards simply won't reach.

and its just p5b dlx?

gigabyte ds3 and dq6 are in this situation?
10-23-2006, 02:09 PM
fhpchris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunaak

like I said in the first post...

all settings done from bios.
the only issue I am aware of, with memset and the P5B is that you can set cas 3 at any time, and it will do nothing... and you can do it at any MHz.

however, I dont understand what you mean by "Solution"...

there is no problem here to solve...

Read what Tony said again ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

You guys are not taking advantage of sub timings, asus losen timings in different modes and ratio's so you have to set like for like to see a true comparison.

Once we have fully opened up bios files you will soon see the power of 1:1 with lower latency over upclocks with relaxed timings im sure. At this time we are being crippled by bios files...trust me ;)
10-23-2006, 02:09 PM
sierra_bound

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCFX

and its just p5b dlx?

gigabyte ds3 and dq6 are in this situation?

I didn't say "just p5b dlx". Read my post again.;)

Kunaak, thanks for the additional tests.
10-23-2006, 02:21 PM
Exedy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

I didn't say "just p5b dlx". Read my post again.;)

Kunaak, thanks for the additional tests.

i know what you said ;) i just have a doubt and made a question :)
10-23-2006, 02:24 PM
sierra_bound

Understood.:)

Regarding the hidden bios setting referred to in an earlier post, well, that would have to be one helluva tweak to make up 18 seconds in 8M (see first post in this thread). I have my doubts about that.
10-23-2006, 02:26 PM
lowfat

wow, it blows me away the differences in 3d01 lobby and 3d03 the dogfight.
10-23-2006, 02:33 PM
bachus_anonym

Awesome results with 3D01 Lobby and 3D03 WoF... High Bandwidth wipes the floor with 8-2-3-3.0! Difference is just huge! I'm pretty sure that TRCD=2 would help some for Fatbody, but still bandwidth rules, it seems :)
Thanks for your hard work, man! :toast:
10-23-2006, 02:53 PM
kiwi

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCFX

i know what you said ;) i just have a doubt and made a question :)

DS3 is not as good as p5b dlx. And it has problems with fsb/ram above 500 or so.
10-23-2006, 07:28 PM
Revv23

yeah GB board have problems with micron memory IIRC/
10-23-2006, 07:46 PM
NO1B4ME

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

wow, it blows me away the differences in 3d01 lobby and 3d03 the dogfight.

Definitely true. What a difference.
10-23-2006, 10:56 PM
hipro5

Nice comparo Kunaak......It seems that Conroe's need more fsb to compete with ram frequency......Of course there are a LOT more to consider...
The "subtimings" may be the same in bios for all configs, and just barries the 367MHz bandwidth.....(one of them).....:)
10-23-2006, 10:58 PM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

Awesome results with 3D01 Lobby and 3D03 WoF... High Bandwidth wipes the floor with 8-2-3-3.0! Difference is just huge! I'm pretty sure that TRCD=2 would help some for Fatbody, but still bandwidth rules, it seems :)
Thanks for your hard work, man! :toast:

Yes actually (3) - 2 - 2 - 1(4) is much better......;)
10-23-2006, 11:25 PM
G H Z

Good stuff Kunaak, I like the 8M's for a little more clarity as well as those eye opening 3D results. Is it possible we shal see hipro running 700Mhz Cas 5 in 3D now ;) :D
10-23-2006, 11:26 PM
Revv23

yeah TRCD makes biggest difference imo, you got those fatties kunaak?

maybe we can finnaly put it to rest on 965 at least.
10-23-2006, 11:35 PM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by G H Z

Good stuff Kunaak, I like the 8M's for a little more clarity as well as those eye opening 3D results. Is it possible we shal see hipro running 700Mhz Cas 5 in 3D now ;) :D

There's NO WAY for me to run anything else than 1:1......:D
10-24-2006, 04:29 AM
Kunaak

Hipro,

why not just try some benchmarks?
these I did, seriously only took about a half hour to do them all.
another 20 minues to post them all...
10-24-2006, 06:28 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunaak

Hipro,

why not just try some benchmarks?
these I did, seriously only took about a half hour to do them all.
another 20 minues to post them all...

As a matter of fact I'll try some out of couriosity.......I have done some in early DDR2 and Conroe rig but I'll re-do them.......
10-24-2006, 06:29 AM
fhpchris

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

As a matter of fact I'll try some out of couriosity.......I have done some in early DDR2 and Conroe rig but I'll re-do them.......

George, just run 4:5 @ 500+ 4-3-2 ;)
10-24-2006, 08:36 AM
Orbitech

Thanks for taking the time to produce those very important results Kunaak.. :toast:

I bought Gskill 2GBHZ 2x1GB and with a first ran I can do 1000 4-4-4-12..
I'm curious to see if I can go further with the same timings but most importantly to ran with 5-4-4-8 and see how far can I go with 2.4V.. I hope I can do better than that..
10-24-2006, 11:09 AM
Kunaak

5 Attachment(s)

Heres some more...
kinda to help those wondering, is running 367 at 3:5 better, then running 1:1 at tight latencies better...

7 x 367 Vs. 6 x 428.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161716893

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161716893

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161716893

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161716893

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1161716893
10-27-2006, 07:21 AM
zakelwe

Here's my tests with nvidia SLI 6800XT at 450/1130 in 2001 Conroe X6800 average of 3 runs on 975 motherboard

300x12 3-3-3 1:1 = 46800

300x12 4-4-4 1:1 = 46350

300x12 4-4-4 2:3 = 45800

360x10 4-4-4 1:1 = 47450

360x10 3-3-3 1:1 = 47700

I've averaged to 50 points but you get the drift. If you are running Sli on 975 then stay 1:1 and get the FSB up. If you have to go off 1:1 then you are flogging a dead horse and from my results memory bandwidth is not King for 3dmark2001 with Sli nvidia.

I think each person needs to suck it and see on their particular setup.

Regards

Andy
10-27-2006, 07:39 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakelwe

I think each person needs to suck it and see on their particular setup.

Regards

Andy

Exactly, every Ram, Mobo, and CPU is different. Sometimes you have to feel out what your system will do
10-27-2006, 01:30 PM
Fr3ak

And I already thought I am doing something seriously wrong.
1:1 is also slightly faster for me.

Nice comparisson Kunaak. Looks like Mhz wins on 965.
10-27-2006, 01:40 PM
sierra_bound

1:1 generally works better with 975X platform because of the way the straps are set. With the P5B Dlx, if you boot into Windows above 400FSB you are on a looser strap. The same is not true for most 975X boards. The advantage of 965 boards is that they will hit higher memory speeds, with reasonable voltage. And as the tests in this thread have shown, high RAM speed will beat 1:1 and tighter timings, at least on the 965 platform.

I use both 965 and 975X. There are things I like about each. But you can't draw conclusions about the 965 platform, based on your experience with 975X. The opposite is also true.
10-27-2006, 02:20 PM
bachus_anonym

1:1 being faster than 4:5 or 2:3 seems to be 975x "problem" then. I have not run 3D01 (I might try soon, though) but a while ago I compared SPi16M and 4:5, 2:3 was sure noticeably faster than 1:1 :fact:

Code:

Comparison of memory ratios - SPi16M on ASUS P5B Deluxe (965P) 400x9, DDR2-800, 1:1 - 6:26.781 400x9, DDR2-1000, 4:5 - 6:12.000 400x9, DDR2-1200, 2:3 - 6:05.000

So, like sierra says, what is true for 975x may not (and probably will not) be the same for 965P...

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 PM.

XtremeSystems